Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Overturns Illegal Immigrant’s ID Theft Conviction (2009)
judicialwatch ^ | MAY 04, 2009 | judicialwatch

Posted on 10/21/2014 6:10:29 AM PDT by dennisw

Supreme Court Overturns Illegal Immigrant’s ID Theft Conviction

MAY 04, 2009

The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that an illegal immigrant who used stolen documents to work is not guilty of identity theft because he didn’t know the information belonged to another person.

The ruling eliminates an important tool for prosecuting and deporting illegal aliens who victimize Americans by stealing their identities to get jobs in this country. In its 18-page decision the court says that the crime of identity theft is limited to those who actually know they stole someone else’s information.

Prosecutors must therefore prove that illegal immigrants who use false identification papers know they belong to another person to be convicted of identity theft. The Supreme Court ruling, which resolves conflicting appeals court decisions on the issue, overturns the aggravated identity theft conviction of a Mexican illegal immigrant (Ignacio Flores-Figueroa).

Flores-Figueroa had pleaded guilty to two counts of misuse of immigration documents and one count of illegally entering the United States. He was subsequently convicted on two counts of aggravated identity theft which added two years to the 51-month sentence for the previous crimes.

In 2000 the illegal alien used a fake name and Social Security number to get a job at an Illinois steal plant. In 2006, he told his employers that he wanted to use his real name and submitted new documents, including a Social Security number he bought in Chicago that belonged to someone else.

But in the High Court’s opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer writes that the law requires prosecutors to show that the defendant knew the counterfeit identification belonged to another person. The court agreed that the illegal immigrant could be charged with a misdemeanor for using an identification he knew was false, but he could not be charged with a felony of aggravated identity theft because he did not know he was using someone else’s Social Security number.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: aliens
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-106 next last

1 posted on 10/21/2014 6:10:29 AM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Please tell me you are kidding.


2 posted on 10/21/2014 6:12:11 AM PDT by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

This was a 9-0 decision so the conservative justices joined in.......

Can someone somehow explain the legal reasoning behind this. How this critter is not guilty of stealing someones SS number? Thanks!
I just cannot see it!


3 posted on 10/21/2014 6:12:22 AM PDT by dennisw (The first principle is to find out who you are then you can achieve anything -- Buddhist monk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Did Scalia write the majority opinion?


4 posted on 10/21/2014 6:12:50 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

this has been applying since 2009...a 2009 decision that even Justices Thomas ans Scalia joined in on


5 posted on 10/21/2014 6:13:30 AM PDT by dennisw (The first principle is to find out who you are then you can achieve anything -- Buddhist monk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
...steal plant...

Freudian slip or plain dumb?

6 posted on 10/21/2014 6:13:32 AM PDT by ex91B10 (We've tried the Soap Box,the Ballot Box and the Jury Box; ONE BOX LEFT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
"....get a job at an Illinois steal plant."

Stolen Identity factory?

7 posted on 10/21/2014 6:13:48 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw; Liz; AuntB; La Lydia; sickoflibs; stephenjohnbanker; Tolerance Sucks Rocks; ...

The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that an illegal immigrant who used stolen documents to work is not guilty of identity theft because he didn’t know the information belonged to another person.
______________________________________________

“he didn’t know the information belonged to another person”

Okaaaaay


8 posted on 10/21/2014 6:14:45 AM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

The argument was that the illegal didn’t know the information belonged to another person. Forget the fact that they conspired to acquire unlawful documentation, you mean to tell me that they were so dumb they didn’t think it was illegitimate?

Last I checked, ignorance of the law is not a valid legal precept.

America’s waning days are growing ever so much more troubling.


9 posted on 10/21/2014 6:15:27 AM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

More details from the NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/us/05immig.html?_r=0

The question in the case was whether workers who use fake identification numbers to commit some other crimes must know they belong to a real person to be subject to a two-year sentence extension for “aggravated identity theft.”

The answer, the Supreme Court said, is yes.

Prosecutors had used the threat of that punishment to persuade illegal workers to plead guilty to lesser charges of document fraud.

“The court’s ruling preserves basic ideals of fairness for some of our society’s most vulnerable workers,” said Chuck Roth, litigation director at the National Immigrant Justice Center in Chicago. “An immigrant who uses a false Social Security number to get a job doesn’t intend to harm anyone, and it makes no sense to spend our tax dollars to imprison them for two years.”

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said in a concurring opinion that a central flaw in the interpretation of the law urged by the government was that it made criminal liability turn on chance. Consider, Justice Alito said, a defendant who chooses a Social Security number at random.

______________EXCERTED________________


10 posted on 10/21/2014 6:15:28 AM PDT by dennisw (The first principle is to find out who you are then you can achieve anything -- Buddhist monk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

An old decision with current ramifications.

And one wonders why the reputation of the law, lawyers, and supreme court jesters...er...judges has sunk to such a low that even sewage has to descend to attain the same level.


11 posted on 10/21/2014 6:16:10 AM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

We have now gone down the rabbit hole, no turning back.


12 posted on 10/21/2014 6:16:13 AM PDT by Mouton (The insurrection laws perpetuate what we have for a government now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

So now ‘Ignorance’ IS a viable defense.??


13 posted on 10/21/2014 6:16:22 AM PDT by griswold3 (I was born here in America. I will die here in a third world country. Obama succeeded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

The only way I could see it is if the defendant was given it, likely by some crony Obama lover DHS worker. They probably don’t speak very much English and were told that the papers were his, and he was a citizen now!

With all the rumors in South American countries spread to flood America with illegal immigrants I honestly would not be surprised if Obama himself initiated this hypothetical transaction.


14 posted on 10/21/2014 6:16:33 AM PDT by FreedomStar3028 (Somebody has to step forward and do what is right because it is right, otherwise no one will follow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

The fix is in.


15 posted on 10/21/2014 6:16:37 AM PDT by dfwgator (The "Fire Muschamp" tagline is back!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

MORE VIA THIS GOOGLE SEARCH>>>>

https://www.google.com/search?num=100&client=firefox-a&hs=m7a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=rcs&q=illegal+immigrant+%28Ignacio+Flores-Figueroa%29&oq=illegal+immigrant+%28Ignacio+Flores-Figueroa%29&gs_l=serp.12...115801.115801.0.118242.1.1.0.0.0.0.137.137.0j1.1.0....0...1c..56.serp..1.0.0.orPZzCgxc0k


16 posted on 10/21/2014 6:17:00 AM PDT by dennisw (The first principle is to find out who you are then you can achieve anything -- Buddhist monk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

In its 18-page decision the court says that the crime of identity theft is limited to those who actually know they stole someone else’s information.


Duh.

Good decision.


17 posted on 10/21/2014 6:17:08 AM PDT by cuban leaf (The US will not survive the obama presidency. The world may not either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

What conservative justices?


18 posted on 10/21/2014 6:17:42 AM PDT by dfwgator (The "Fire Muschamp" tagline is back!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

And by tht logic, he could rob a bank because he because he didn’t “really” know who the money belonged to...right?

Up is down
Down is Up
Lies are Truth...


19 posted on 10/21/2014 6:18:05 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

http://www.wnd.com/2009/02/89839/

Flores-Figueroa claims he is not at fault because he “had no intention of stealing anyone’s identity” when he purchased numbers from a person in Chicago who sells sham IDs.

So, with Kevin Russell of Howe & Russell representing him, the illegal alien took his case to the Supreme Court.

On Wednesday, in Flores-Figueroa v. United States, the court will hear arguments on whether an illegal alien who fraudulently uses identification can be charged under the statute without proof that he knew the ID was stolen.

An estimated 8 million U.S. citizens become victims of identity theft every year. The case could protect illegal aliens from prosecution if the Supreme Court rules they cannot be charged under the federal statute unless prosecutors can prove they knew their fraudulent IDs belonged to American citizens.

Acting Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler wrote in the brief that the federal statute is meant to “provide enhanced protection” for victims of identity theft.

“The harm the victim suffers when her identity is so misused bears no necessary relationship to the perpetrator’s awareness of her existence,” he wrote.

Los Angeles attorney Stephen Masterson supported Kneedler’s position, stating that the question of whether an illegal alien knows he

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2009/02/89839/#BAEydkEU8hX6qHZ3.99


20 posted on 10/21/2014 6:18:56 AM PDT by dennisw (The first principle is to find out who you are then you can achieve anything -- Buddhist monk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-106 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson